Geochemical interactions between supercritical CO2 and the Midale Formation. I: Introduction to fluid-rock interaction experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes work undertaken at the British Geological Survey (BGS) that forms part of the international IEA Weyburn CO2 Monitoring and Storage Project. This project aims to monitor and predict the behaviour of injected CO2 into the Midale reservoir at the Weyburn oil field in southern Saskatchewan, Canada, using methods that include; time-lapse geophysics, modelling its subsurface distribution and migration, and simulating likely chemical interactions with the host rock. This report aims to provide a description of the laboratory experimental techniques that are being applied at the British Geological Survey to investigate the reactions between CO2 and various lithologies within the Midale formation. Later reports will detail the results of these experiments. \nThe experimental study is being undertaken in the Hydrothermal Laboratory of the BGS, where various measurements are being taken. The techniques that will be used are based upon those used in previous CO2 projects (e.g. during the JouleII CO2 storage project [Holloway, 1996; Czernichowski-Lauriol et al., 1996], and during the SACS project [Rochelle et al., 2002]. This will hopefully allow for better intercomparison between the various studies. \nThe experiments will utilise actual Midale core material from the Weyburn oil field, together with synthetic formation waters based upon measured compositions of samples at the well-head. The experimental conditions chosen for the investigation cover those representative of in-situ conditions (approximately 60°C, 150 bar [15 MPa]), as well as conditions at the bottom of injection wells where pressures might reach approximately 250 bar [25 MPa]. Experiment durations are planned to range from one week to 6 months. Experiments will be pressurised with either nitrogen or carbon dioxide. The former will provide a ‘non reacting’ reference point from which to compare the more reactive experiments containing CO2. However, it is hoped that they will also help to provide increased confidence in the understanding of the baseline conditions within the Midale formations prior to CO2 injection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".